Senate Hearing On Laptop Seizures At US Border

suitablegirl writes "As we have discussed, Customs and Border Patrol is allowed to seize and download data from laptops or electronic devices of Americans returning from abroad. At a Senate hearing tomorrow, privacy advocates and industry groups will urge the lawmakers to take action to protect the data and privacy of Americans not guilty of anything besides wanting to go home."

Comments

About time.

[PitViper401]

That policy is insane, I don't need them seeing all my files. And I don't just mean the music. I mean files I created, by myself, that I just feel are mine to show to whom I want.

Re:About time.

[TubeSteak]

That policy is insane, Yes

I don't need them seeing all my files. And I don't just mean the music. I mean files I created, by myself, that I just feel are mine to show to whom I want. Not your choice.
If you take it or send it through the border, they can inspect it.
This is not new. It predates The War on [noun/adjective/adverb/other]
End of discussion.

The issue here is not whether they can inspect your documents, but whether they can keep a copy of your electronic files. FTFA:

"Opening my suitcase at the border is not the same as opening my laptop and making a permanent record of everything in it," he said. The difference is that one search is transitory in nature, while copying your hard drive is not.

Electronics do not and should not have any protection above and beyond a paper document.
That said, electronics should also not be treated any differently than a paper document.

Again, the issues are:
A) Should the government make a copy of electronic files crossing the border
B) If they do, how will that data be handled

Re:About time.

[Anonymous Coward]

That policy is insane, I don't need them seeing all my files. And I don't just mean the music. I mean files I created, by myself, that I just feel are mine to show to whom I want.

A child pornographer could make the same statement. Not implying anything, of course. Just saying that perhaps you should approach this from a property rights or trade secrets direction.

Re:About time.

[techno-vampire]

Electronics do not and should not have any protection above and beyond a paper document. That said, electronics should also not be treated any differently than a paper document.

Exactly. If they're not allowed to make copies of any paper documents you have so that they can inspect them later, they shouldn't be allowed to do that to your hard disk either.

Re:About time.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is rather silly exercise though given that files "come through the border" over the Internet and private networks all the time. It seems like customs just want to have a look up everyone's skirt as opposed to stopping any profoundly illegal activity.

Re:About time.

[speedtux]

A child pornographer could make the same statement.

So? In order for border inspection of files to be an effective means against child pornography, we'd have to outlaw encryption and stop cross-border Internet traffic. And even then, we'd still be left with the fact that border agents simply are not qualified to make determinations about obscenity or pornography, child or otherwise.

Not implying anything,

I am, however, implying something: I think bringing up the "child pornography" argument is moronic. A bunch of ineffective and unproven policies like this are not going to help our children, but they are going to harm our democracy and cost us dearly in terms of tourism and business.

Re:About time.

[bytesex]

The problem is that bringing an encrypted or sealed letter (or business papers) across the border, will probably not raise a flag, even when inspected. Bringing an encrypted laptop across, however, may prompt them to force you to reveal the key. If all that was ever sealed had to be opened at the border, there would be no international business.

Re:About time.

[MrNaz]

"cost us dearly in terms of tourism and business."

To say nothing of freedom and justice.

Re:About time.

[Amy Grace]

Yeah, but creating child pornography is illegal even if one does not encrypt them when they're stored on ones' laptop. Writing policy papers on my city's harm-reduction drug strategy isn't illegal, although it's not something I want to pop up every time I try to enter the US.

I don't like the implication that because bad people like privacy so they don't get caught doing bad things, everyone who likes their privacy is doing bad things. There's a name for that particular fallacy, I think, but I don't remember. It's really quite similar to the argument that law-abiding citizens shouldn't mind the ever-present CCTV surveillance of public areas, since it will only affect criminals.

Re:About time.

[Skuldo]

What about MicroSD? I have a 1GB card, and it is smaller than my little fingernail, it could go taped inside the cover of a book, roof of your mouth, in a packet of sweets, anywhere.

Re:About time.

[speedtux]

If you can catch dumb criminals, why shouldn't you ?

Because it means giving up a lot of liberties and accepting a lot of risk for law-abiding citizens in exchange for essentially no improvement in the safety of children.

In terms of risk, ask yourself: are you really sure that none of the images in your browser cache might be interpreted as child pornography? Remember, you need not even have seen or clicked on the image: browsers can prefetch images for you, and Javascript can load images behind your back. And it doesn't have to be actual child pornography, it merely has to look like it.

I think attitudes like yours are dangerous.

Re:About time.

[hedwards]

I'd be curious to hear what the justification is for searching laptops. It's far, far too easy to get covert information across the borders through the internet to even bother searching random laptops for information.

Really, any search beyond what's necessary to demonstrate that it's not being used to smuggle drugs, bombs etc., is far more than is reasonable or necessary.

Nobody in their right mind is going to send information that sensitive via a carried computer. I supose they might employ stagonometry to hide the files, but you're not going to bust that in the time that border agents have to inspect things.

It really strikes me as another vain attempt to bring the rules of the physical world to the digital world.

OTOH for suspects that's a totally different matter.

Re:About time.

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for not bathing there is an other way to object to this policy: Fill your drive with pictures like Goatse.

Re:About time.

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't TrueCrypt able to encrypt the whole drive even if it already contains data, without destroying that data? Thus not requiring the external space you mention as the obstacle that keeps you from encrypting. Maybe I'm wrong and maybe it's a standard feature in encryption software. Just thought you might find the info useful.

Re:About time.

[Choozy]

I am, however, implying something: I think bringing up the "child pornography" argument is moronic. A bunch of ineffective and unproven policies like this are not going to help our children, but they are going to harm our democracy and cost us dearly in terms of tourism and business.

Not to mention the fact that 99% of parents out there have photos of their kids half or totally naked. These people are obviously not paedophiles but your statement makes it seem that they are. Could you really want some border security guy have the ability to copy all your personal photos for later "perusal"?

Re:About time.

[geminidomino]

Yeah, well, apparently wanting to come home from your Caribbean cruise constitutes "probable cause" to these scumbags.

Re:About time.

[Jaysyn]

That is quite possibly one of the most evil things I've ever read.

Re:About time.

[Larry Lightbulb]

He is a terrorist, I am a freedom fighter.

Re:About time.

[mlwmohawk]

May prompt them to force you to reveal the key

They do not have the right to order you give your password. They may instruct you to do so, but you under no obligation to comply. This is an actual ruling from the supreme court of the U.S. siting the 5th amendment.

The 5th amendment is not about protecting guilty people, it is about protecting presumed innocent people from providing information that may be used to incriminate themselves. There can be no inferred presumption of guilt by law enforcement by merely invoking your 5th amendment rights.

One of the contemporary inspirations of the 5th amendment was the kind of government in Europe typified by Cardinal Richelieu's famous quote: "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged" The thinking was that there will always be laws that could be applied to coerce innocent people. The 5th amendment was a protection for basically lawful individuals from being trapped and imprisoned by politically motivated prosecution.

Re:About time.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you.

Every once in awhile a gem like this comes a long that keeps me reading.

/. is a lot like golf. Damn frustrating, but every now and then a good shot keeps you coming back.

Re:About time.

[Mister Whirly]

Exactly. Or encrypted online storage. Why bring it with you at all when you travel?

Re:About time.

[methuselah]

finally someone gets it

Yes I have heard of it.

it is the 4th amendment to the constitution of the united states of america. Why they are discussing anything that violates this with regard to a united states citizen baffles me to no end. what truly astounds me is that anyone that argues in favor of such a violation actually considers themselves a U.S. Citizen much less intelligent.

Re:About time.

[nightfire-unique]

The border patrol has been known to force-feed powerful laxatives to pregnant women and shackle them to a hospital bed for two days while they watch them shit into a bucket. And that just for the War on Drugs. Now that there's a War on Terror run by a government that's willing to torture, do you really think hiding something up your ass will do a bit of good?

If that story is true, every single principle actor who was involved should be tried, and hanged. Behaving this way under the colour of authority should be punishable by death.

Can we be a little more inclusive?

[RenHoek]

All nice and dandy, but please remember that the rest of us filthy foreigners who are coming for a friendly visit aren't directly guilty of anything in particular either. We'd like to keep our private stuff private as well..

So please protect the data and privacy of us non-Americans as well.

Re:Can we be a little more inclusive?

[Anonymous Coward]

I want to extend even that: it's not only about privacy, but also about business and trade secrets. People on business trips having to give up their laptops is simply unacceptable.

Re:Can we be a little more inclusive?

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

All nice and dandy, but please remember that the rest of us filthy foreigners who are coming for a friendly visit aren't directly guilty of anything in particular either.

There's a good reason why international tourism in the US is plummeting when a low US dollar means it should be increasing.

Oh well, I guess the US economy is strong enough to withstand $94 Billion in lost spending.... oh wait!

Re:Can we be a little more inclusive?

[bane2571]

You see, that right there is why I don't get how these searches pass any common sense test. I could stop at any one of a hundred internet cafes on one side of the border, Gmail the "illegal" file to myself, delete it off my laptop, cross the border and go to another internet cafe and download it, deleting everything up to and including the Gmail account itself. If I was suspicious of Gmail's data retention policies there are hundreds of other ways to interweb some data.

It's like DRM, Inconveniencing innocent people in a big while doing little to nothing to stop whatever problem is trying to be stopped.

Re:Can we be a little more inclusive?

[YeeHaW_Jelte]

Thank you. I'll up you one on that and actually never 'git in'.

Even my mother, who married in the states in '68 and lived there on numerous occassions, has reached her limit regarding the security checks at the airport.

I'm sorry for all you good guys over there, but this government paranoia is going to cost you big time, I'm not kidding.

Foreigners (read: trade partners, not terrorists) will stay away, choosing to conduct their business with a more open society.

Re:Can we be a little more inclusive?

[Opportunist]

Nice to see that at least some US citizens match the stereotype. I mean, what's a stereotype if you can't pull someone in front of the curtain and point at him?

I'm actually facing a really big problem due to all the terror craze. I love the US. No, really, I do. Great country. I like a lot of people there, and I miss seeing them.

But with that government? Treating me like some sort of criminal right when I get in, just because I wanted to spend some Euros there instead of here? Somehow, it ruins my holidays when they already start with a hassle and searches that would make my proctologist blush. Well, not really. Yet. Give it a few...

Re:Can we be a little more inclusive?

[Opportunist]

If wanting privacy makes you a terrorist, then I'm a terrorist.

Seriously. I like my privacy right that way. Private. I prefer privacy to security. I can rest more easily being called a terrorist than being called a coward. Because that's someone who gives up his privacy, his freedom and his free will for security: A coward.

Re:Can we be a little more inclusive?

[thesupraman]

Wrong, it is not uncommmon and a transfer to be marched off the plane, asked to collect bags, then processed back through 'security checks' along with full documentation checks, records, etc and then held until transfer in a 'secure holding location'.

Of course this is not consistently done, apparently terrorists only use certain airports..

That is why I dont even transfer through the US these days if I can avoid it - their loss, less business for their carriers.

Some would argue that I could have evil terrorist items in my luggage allowing me to take over the plane or something, but hell, I just flew in over the US, so had all the opportunity in the world then...

Does it feel good to treat the rest of the world as though they are criminals?

Re:Can we be a little more inclusive?

[KGIII]

You could also mail the data in snail mail and that is subject to certain rights as well. However, if you personally carry it across then your plain text data (say a date book) can be searched. The issue here isn't searching it, we've (as a government at least) established that we have a right or obligation to do so. The issue here is retaining the data by making a copy of it. I am pretty liberal in my views in that I'd not be at all offended (I'd be annoyed with the time it took if they were going to bother doing it right) to have my laptop searched when crossing. I'll be right friggen pissed off if they want to clone my drives to inspect it later. I'm from the school of, "You got a problem or question for me then you ask me, to my face, and we'll deal with it there." The idea of them taking a copy, stealing if you will - they can't keep my clothing for drug residue testing in a lab just on a whim (I don't think) so I'll be pretty pissy if they try to do so with my data.

Re:Can we be a little more inclusive?

[Antique Geekmeister]

Oh? What about monitoring of political opponents? Tax fraud? Cell phone records and email of individuals for whom there just isn't enough evidence for a legitimate warrant? Cute college students that the border guard can plan to be at the same bar or party with? Stock tips from business travelers closing international deals?

The potential for abuse is endless. Please don't limit your completely justified paranoia. Since there's no court order, and no clear judicial jurisdiction for this data, it will most certainly be abused, and abused with little recourse to prove who had it.

Okay, that rules out Sweden and the US

[Fluffeh]

Recently Sweden's recent information tapping laws and this US take on labelling anything that has information as fair game to seize, copy and snoop one make for some creeping "big brother is watching you" wins.

Actually, I wasn't aware that any and all printed matter was able to be seized or copied when crossing borders. The article implies that this has been done to allow the same level of access across all media types, but that means that customs can just jump in and copy my diary when I enter the US? Why do I feel like I skipped a page in this unfolding story?

Americans' rights

[VincenzoRomano]

Are not stronger than other country people's.

Re:Americans' rights

[Anonymous Coward]

They are if you want to enter the country... Welcome to life, you have to obey the laws of the place you're visiting. Americans are still subject to British style libel laws while in England, Germans are subject to Thai drug laws while in Thailand, Danes are subject to Chinese censorship laws while in China, etc.

If you don't agree with the laws of the place you want to visit, don't go... and if you don't think it should be easier for you to get back home than someone who doesn't live there, be sure to leave your house unlocked.

Re:Americans' rights

[trentblase]

Inside the US, American's rights are stronger than those of non-Americans. For example, American's have the right to vote in US elections. This right is pretty much limited to American citizens. I think most people would agree that this policy makes sense. Such arguments apply to other rights as well. Although I do not support the searches in question, it is completely different to deny a foreigner access to the US than to deny a citizen the right to return to their family. If you want rights consummate with mine, I also expect you to assume the requisite duties: paying income tax (including income earned abroad), reporting for jury duty, etc.

this just BEGS for someone...

[Khyber]

to write a malicious virus for the express purpose of screwing up any other computer that information gets on. Hell, one could feign ignorance and smake it look like the laptop just had a bad spyware infection that brought lots of crap to its knees.

Thank you for giving us yet ANOTHER WEAKNESS TO FIX, USGOVT. We'll be sending you the bill in a month.

i don't get it

[i_b_don]

What's really the goal? why is this an issue? If the government is really looking for something specific in laptops there should be an automated process where they plug in a thumb drive on EVERYONE's laptop and sort through all your stuff, not some schmo rambling through your files who doesn't have a clue. That doesn't do squat and serves no meaningful purpose.

Really, what the hell are they looking for? This almost seems like the government equivalent of a governmental Mt Everest. They do it "because they can". It seems to me the same as giving everyone a drug test as they cross the border and then arresting those who test positive.

There's nothing that is getting "smuggled" across our border on laptops that isn't going across in 1000x more massive streams over the internet. The idea that the fear of terrorism is involved is simply ludicrous. What's the thought here, that someone was writing their terrorist memorandum in MS word while on the plane and the border agent is going to turn on the laptop and see it???

This is mindbogglingly stupid.

What the hell is the real motivation here?

d

This policy is hurting the US already

[OMG]

Let me assure you that I do know quite a few people who refrain from traveling to the USA for doing business nowadays. One, you are being treated like a criminal at the border, with the fingerprints reexported to the criminal database of your homeland, two, having all you data copied at the border is ... unthinkable.

Now, if you won't do this to American citizens anymore, great. Does not help all the other business people from around the world.

And lastly, if the Dollar wouldn't have this "all time low" right now, many people would not see a reason to spend their holidays in the USA either.

You just don't be surprised when it hits you, please.

Re:ECHELON/Warrantless Wiretapping

[digitalchinky]

Someone else clearly has no idea either :-) Echelon is so 1950's and simply has never existed in the way you claim. Aside from this it is a physical impossibility anyway. Anyone calling attention to this persistent little word is actually somewhat deserving of the phrase you have used. This is simply because they close their eyes to reality in favour of a good old conspiracy theory instead.

Individual 3 letter agencies. That's all you'll find, each of them with different missions and objectives. Martin from DSD some years back offered up the existence of the UKUSA relationship. 5 countries that pass little secret notes amongst themselves. It's not the only association, it's just one of hundreds made by all countries the world over.

To put things in to perspective for you: Absolutely none of these agencies have unlimited resources or humans to throw around. They have a finite number of magic boxes that do their business. Now how many strands of fiber cover the earth, how many satellites exist, how many signals do they relay at any one instant in time. How many terrestrial forms of communication exist, copper, radio, light.

The answer is absolutely vastly more than every single intelligence agency on the earth combined could ever hope to suck down. But even if they could, what is important and what is junk without hindsight or human analysis?

Your average undersea cable isn't just one massive big packet switched transmission you can plug in to wireshark, they have thousands of discreet methods of communication, some encrypted, some multiplexed, some utterly unique.

What stops me setting up my own radio link across a border? I could make it mobile, I could use frequency hopping, spread spectrum, directional antenna, encryption, everything and anything available. Do I have to tell anyone I've done this? Nope, I might break a few laws, but the chance of getting caught is so slim it really doesn't factor very high.

Re:Has been legal since the Constitution was signe

[servognome]

Actually case law applying to searches at the border existed before 1904, specifically looking at customs searches for taxation and compliance purposes. And SCOTUS cites such border searches as a "traditional right" exercised by countries even before the formation of the US.

what if

[Anonymous Coward]

let's say I arrive at US border with a laptop stuffed with code I wrote, prototypes and whatnot.

The guy inspecting me is maybe tired of his job, and he can get 200Mb of source code for free. Maybe he can't use it, but his computer wiz buddy can. Or maybe sell it somewhere.

Also, maybe he's just working there because his programming job went to India. Maybe a glance at the unfinished prototype can give him ideas, and he steals it.

I am not saying that my shit is so cool that someone would be delighted to see it. What I am saying is that as a solo or small company developer I don't have resources to patent something or sue someone. Therefore I must secure my stuff the best way I can. I can encrypt drives, have backups etc, and most of those measures are good enough to protect yourself from a common thief nicking your laptop.

But how do you protect yourself from US government as an individual? You can't, you can only bend over, and maybe I don't want to. Should I ask other 2 officers in the room to be witnesses that the 3rd officer is violating my rights and stealing data from my laptop. I guess they would feel obliged to stand against their work buddy on behalf of a stranger from some funky country with a funky name, right? Right?

They could as well take my laptop and tell me to piss off. What can I do, except maybe be happy I didn't end up in Guantanamo? Protection by international law against country that runs Guantanamo, bombs the shit out of 3rd world on a whim, and elects a chimp for a president? I don't think so.

I guess nobody in US will be hurt by the fact that I'll take my business elsewhere, and nobody would even notice. I would tho, so because I didn't fancy traveling to Eastern Germany in the 80's, for same reason I don't really fancy traveling to US these days. You do the math.

Re:On a technicality...

[VdG]

If you're not in the US yet, how can you have committed any crime in US jurisdiction?
If you are in the US then surely you're entitled to the protection of the US constitution?

And screw foreign businessmen.

[scaryjohn]

At a Senate hearing tomorrow, privacy advocates and industry groups will urge the lawmakers to take action to protect the data and privacy of Americans not guilty of anything besides wanting to go home.

But if we can still use these searches for industrial espionage on foreign firms, well, Boy Howdy!